Exceptional Promise | Software Engineer | Feedback on MC, OC2, OC3 and Recommendation Letters

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

Hi everyone,

I’m preparing my UK Global Talent Visa application under the Exceptional Promise route and would appreciate some feedback on my evidence.

I’m a backend engineer with around 3 years of experience, mostly in fintech startups. I have no prior experience apart from this and was a student. I started as a founding engineer at a startup that was later acquired.

I’m planning to apply under MC + OC2 + OC3.

Mandatory Criterion (MC)

MC1: Open source recognition

I created and maintained an open source plugin with another maintainer. Over time, we split it into multiple packages.

I stopped actively maintaining it around 2–3 years ago, but the project has continued to grow and now gets around 450k monthly downloads across its packages (combined downloads, not unique users).

I also have public comments from fellow maintainers in 2022 and 2023 acknowledging my contributions, along with evidence of other developers and organisations using the packages.

MC2: Career progression and remuneration

I was promoted to SDE3 within around a year of joining my previous company, with roughly 3 years of total experience. My work involved designing backend systems for financial products, taking ownership of major projects and leading architecture reviews.

My previous compensation in India was around ₹40–50 LPA including equity. I’ve since joined a UK tech startup with a base salary of around £100k–£120k plus equity.

I can provide promotion records, employment contracts, salary comparisons and confirmation of my responsibilities from senior management.

Optional Criterion 2 (OC2)

OC2.1: Google Summer of Code

I completed a GSoC project in 2021. My code was reviewed and merged into the main project, where it is still being used and maintained.

I have official GSoC records, GitHub PRs and commit history to support this.

OC2.2: Open source plugin

For this, I plan to show the original code I wrote, features I developed, releases and maintenance work, along with examples of other projects using it.

This is the same plugin mentioned under MC1, but I plan to use separate evidence for my recognition under MC and my actual technical contributions under OC2, without repeating the same screenshots or documents.

Optional Criterion 3 (OC3)

OC3.1: Investment platform

I designed and built the backend for an investment platform, including investment execution, recurring investments and payment processing.

Already millions of dollars worth has been invested through the platform.

OC3.2: Financial data aggregation platform

I built the initial backend for a financial data platform and was the sole backend engineer for around four months. My work included data ingestion, processing and APIs.

Few more engineers later joined and took on further implementation work, while I continued to be involved in architecture decisions.

The platform has since grown to 100k+ linked financial accounts and tracks billions of dollars in assets.

For both OC3 documents, I can get technical documentation, production metrics and confirmation of my contributions from my former CTO.

Recommendation Letters (LORs)

I’m considering getting two of my three mandatory recommendation letters from the CTO and CPO of my former company, where I worked for over two years.

Both know my work well, but from different perspectives. The CTO can discuss my technical work, while the CPO can talk about the product and business impact.

My third recommender would be from outside the company.

My questions

  1. MC strength: Does the combination of open source recognition, career progression, technical leadership and remuneration look reasonable for Exceptional Promise? I’m unsure whether my MC evidence is strong enough.

  2. MC/OC2 overlap: Would using the same open source project for recognition under MC and technical contributions under OC2 be a problem, even if I use different evidence?

  3. Older contributions: Would a GSoC contribution from 2021 still be suitable for OC2 if the code was merged and is still in use?

  4. Recommendation letters: Would getting letters from both the CTO and CPO of the same company be an issue? Has anyone successfully applied with two recommenders from the same organisation?

I’d appreciate any feedback.
Thanks!

2

The plugin gives you a plausible MC route, but downloads alone do not establish your individual recognition. Show what you personally contributed and how that work was recognised beyond your job, with evidence of its reach. Your 2022 and 2023 maintainer comments and examples of external use may help. Promotion and remuneration add context, but salary evidence alone is insufficient.

One open-source project can support MC and OC2 if you use separate evidence documents for each criterion. A 2021 GSoC contribution is not automatically too old for OC2: unlike MC, OC2 is framed around a consistent, ongoing record of voluntary contributions, not a stated five-year window. The code remaining in use and maintained supports its impact, but maintenance by others does not show your continuing contribution. If your GSoC work was a one-off and you have no later voluntary contributions, it is unlikely to establish that ongoing record by itself.

Three recommendation letters must come from three different experts, with distinct examples in each. The Guide does not expressly bar two recommenders from one employer, so the CTO and CPO could each contribute first-hand, non-duplicative evidence from their different perspectives; both still need to meet the expert and knowledge requirements.

3

@anush, trust you are good.

Being a backend engineer with 3 years of experience in a fintech startup shows you are in the early stage of your career. This positions you well for the Promise pathway.

On your evidence

The open source plugin you created and maintain can be good for MC, but you have stopped maintaining it. This will invalidate substantial and continued involvement. However, since it is still useful at present with 450k monthly downloads across its packages, if you can show ownership, acknowledgement from peers and developers, and evidence of organisational adoption, then this can be a good start for MC.

MC2 Career progression and remuneration progression are internal recognition of your competence as an employee and not industry recognition as an expert. This can support your application story, but it is not sufficient evidence. Salary, regardless of how much one earns, is not enough. Applicants are expected to show how they have advanced the sector outside their paid job. Your promotion records, employment contracts, salary comparisons, and confirmation of your responsibilities from senior management can support your narrative and other evidence.

On OC2.1 Your Google Summer of Code project in 2021 is almost 5 years old, depending on the month, and may be dismissed as evidence outside the assessment timeline. Also, whilst GSoC can be used as evidence for OC2, simply participating alone is generally not enough to prove sector advancement. You need to highlight whether the feature, library, tool, or fix you built in GSoC was merged into a major open source project and provide its metrics.

OC2.2 The open source plugin can be used in OC2 too alongside MC, but the evidence you present needs to be unique. MC should focus on the impact that brought recognition, while OC2 should focus on the contribution that brought impact.

On OC3 Is your investment platform a product led product? Simply saying you built it will not show your technical contributions. You need to show evidence of lines of code, architecture, diagrams, workflow designs, version control history, and all the evidence that demonstrates the technical work you did. On OC3.2 Is the financial data aggregation platform also a product led company? This is the first point of check for OC3.

Your technical documentation, production metrics, and confirmation of your contributions from your former CTO can be useful, but based on recent rejection feedback, they may not sufficiently demonstrate your substantial contribution. You need to support them with externally validated evidence and supporting commercial metrics.

On your questions

  1. MC strength: Does the combination of open source recognition, career progression, technical leadership, and remuneration look reasonable for Exceptional Promise? I’m unsure whether my MC evidence is strong enough.

This can give your MC a good start.

  1. MC/OC2 overlap: Would using the same open source project for recognition under MC and technical contributions under OC2 be a problem, even if I use different evidence?

You can do this, as long as the evidence is unique and the evidence presented rightly aligns with each criterion.

  1. Older contributions: Would a GSoC contribution from 2021 still be suitable for OC2 if the code was merged and is still in use?

If your contributions are recent and substantial, it can be okay. However, if there have been no recent contributions, this may be dicey to be honest. But can be used as supporting evidence.

  1. Recommendation letters: Would getting letters from both the CTO and CPO of the same company be an issue? Has anyone successfully applied with two recommenders from the same organisation?

Recent feedback has shown that letters obtained from the same company, from individuals who are not indeed established experts in the sector, are usually dismissed as letters from colleagues or individuals within one’s circle.

All the best.